The Last American Vagabond - James Corbett Interview - Engineered Division & Subservience Under A Guise Of Resistance

Episode Date: April 26, 2025

Joining me today is James Corbett, here to discuss the long con of the US partisan divide, the budding Palantir control grid, and what appears to be the technocratic agenda truly coming to fruition. We also discuss the engineered division of the US under the guise of resisting the "other side" and what James has seen shift in the field of independent media -- over the decades of running the Corbett Report -- as well as the narratives around the agendas themselves and the public's reaction to them. James breaks down what he sees happening with the mainstream alternative media (MAM) and the many different transitions currently taking place from the old systems to the new.Source Links:The Corbett Report | Open Source Intelligence NewsNew TabEpisode 473 – Algocracy: Government for the New World Order | The Corbett ReportLeaked: Palantir’s Plan to Help ICE Deport PeopleWelcome to the Palantir World OrderThe Impending Future Of AI-Government - But Who Controls The AI?RFK Jr.'s autism study to amass medical records of many Americans - CBS NewsThe Fast-Approaching Digital Control Grid: A Checklist of Trump Administration Actions to Date – Solari ReportNew TabThe Battle for Your Brain is ALREADY Underway | The Corbett ReportMWI Video: The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future – Dr. James Giordano - Modern War InstituteStargate: Trump Partners with Technocrats to Promote mRNA Injections, AI, and TranshumanismThe Quiet Transition From DARPA's XAI To Elon's xAI & Haaretz Exposes Sadistic Nature Of The IDFAmericans Speaking Out About Israel's Genocide Could Be Next - In Principle It Is The SameJames Corbett Archives - The Last American VagabondBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f) Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

That's the mindset. We need to control humanity and slot everybody into their place and not only force them into that place, but get them to want to willingly choose that place in society. And wouldn't that be perfect? Because then everyone would be where they want to be and everyone would be happy with it. It's the exact same thing that Aldous Huxley was talking about in his ultimate revolution speech towards the end of his life where he was talking about, you know, soon, dictators of the future will have the ability not only to control people with these electronic

electrodes plant into their brains and other such things that he was talking about, technology that he had seen in laboratories on mice and what have you, but he said they will be able to learn to love their servitude. Welcome to the Last American Vagabond. Joining me today is James Corbett to discuss kind of a large sprawling conversation topic. I was recently looking into just beginning to read his book that he recently put out and it kind of spurred some thoughts for me in regard to a unique position that James Corbett holds in this field. And it's just a general sense doing this for as long as he has in such a consistent,

well-sourced, objective way. I decided to reach out and invite him on to discuss how his perspective might have changed from, you know, before and up until COVID-19 and how things might have changed in that discussion, maybe how it's changed since that point. And now with all that's going on in the world, how things might have changed and how he views what the agenda may be, how it may have shifted since then and just get his take on some of these larger topics going on around the deportation constitutional conversation, Palantir and Technocracy. Honestly, I don't think of anybody better to have on to talk about that. So James, how are you today? I'm doing all right. Thank you very much for having me on. Thank you for getting the book. It is now available at

reportagebook.com. It's reportage essays on the New World Order. Represents 15 years of work, not a lie. Literally started it in 2009, finished it in 2024, published it in 2025. And people might see that Sean, my new assistant is working in the background. And if people want to meet not just Sean to the back of his head, but maybe even the front of his head and video editor extraordinaire Brock West, they can meet us all at the book launch for reportage, which is taking place in Osaka on May 10th. So if you're going to be in my neck of the woods in Japan, May 10th, swing on by.

You can meet us. I'll casually drop by Osaka. We'll get there. I wish I could, definitely. But yeah, make sure you make it out for that. That's probably going to be fantastic. Well, you know, in general, like I said, you know, we've talked a lot throughout the years, James, and my work has, you know, grown a lot around, as I've said before, as I was growing into

it around, you know, emulating what I think you put out there, which is the objective, nonpartisan, you know, airing on the side of your principles, which kind of seems like we should always be doing that. But today it seems like that's become like a mantra of mine in regard to what's going on. And now more than ever, we sort of have to err on the side of what you really believe in your principles, even if there's a really well put together narrative for why it shouldn't make sense today, you know, and that's kind of where I think we are. There's a lot to get into in general, but I kind of wanted to start from just kind of the beginning

point I talked about. So going back to before, let's say, COVID-19, because I think we can all agree that that was a pretty large kind of inflection point, a lot of changed, a lot was done, and you'd been Mark following along up until that point about a lot of those things may be coming to pass, and then we saw a lot of it happen. So before COVID-19, were there any major shifts in the way you viewed things that COVID-19 sort of changed for you, like from then up until the beginning of the COVID illusion? I'm really trying to think if there's, if there's anything in terms of my worldview with relation to the they, them, those, the would-be controllers of society, I would say that that really didn't, if anything, it only reinforced

the views that I already had. But the thing that I do think fundamentally changed during the Scamdemic era was my perception of the public and the public's understanding of where we are and how it can and cannot be manipulated. And there's both hopeful and, well, unhopeful sides to that reaction that I saw. The thing that was really disheartening to see was how quickly, I want to say millions, but I suppose it was billions of people around the world were able to just adopt this new, completely new attitude that mere months beforehand would have been unthinkable. What are you talking about? Oh, government's going to try to lock you in your home and tell you where you can go

and what you make a QR code to scan to get in and wear masks and get medical interventions. That's crazy conspiracy talk. And then suddenly, okay, no, but we have to do this. It's two weeks to flatten the curve and all of that. That was disheartening to see how quickly how many people could be so easily railing. wrote it into all of that. However, I think the subsequent, the way that that played out over the ensuing years has given us reasons for hope, not hopium, genuine hope, in that I think there are a lot more people now who understand that, you know, experts and the expert class and scientists

and all of these people are not floating on clouds and they are not just pure paragons of rationality and that they may be influenced by political and financial forces, etc., which would have been unthinkable to a lot of people before this all began, is thinkable now. So I think there has been a perception change, but it just does go to show that how quickly people will rally around whatever they are told to rally around in the event of an emergency. And that's a dangerous precedent. Because what does that signal to the would-be controllers of the world? Well, you. You need an emergency. We need to do more crises and emergencies.

And, of course, it won't always be a pandemic. It will be something else next time. It will be something else next time. But it's that sort of raising of the bar. We have to do something more and more spectacular to make sure everybody gets on board with the next agenda item. So what kind of spectacular things can they do to, I don't know, reorient the entire world monetary system or, you know, reorient global geopolitics or bring in the, you know, the CBDC digital ideas. control grid, et cetera, et cetera. It will require some sort of emergency situation.

And unfortunately, I'm sure there are people who are working on that. Well, you could argue we're currently in one in a way, right? I mean, it's like in a way, even currently some tangential declarations of emergency on the border and those things are already there, you know. But I'm so glad that you said that because it's probably to the frustration of my audience. And I'm really all, I'm discussing a lot the idea of the majority and whether I think that that more people today are seeing things in general, whether it's the majority or not. But, and I'll try not to bring this up more than once in general.

Well, let's start with this point about the earlier discussion you had. I just want to ask the question, do you think that that majority change opinion or however you see that, the more people paying attention, or rather more so the other side of it during the COVID-19, like everybody rushing to get TP, do you think that that was in somewhat, in part, an illusion, entirely an illusion? Like, to what degree do you think maybe people really didn't fall for it? And that was just what was projected. I think it's an important thing to always ask.

I think initially, the initial response, I do think that many, many, many, many people went for that genuinely. So many of the people that I talked to in reality in my own life, 100% were on board or at least we're not questioning it at that point. As I say, as it continued to play out, I think more and more of those people fell out of the matrix and began questioning. But initially, my sense is that a. majority probably did go along with it. Having said that, even the fact that there are now many,

many more people who are questioning what happened in the expert class, et cetera, to the extent that that plays into the left-right framework, it isn't necessarily to our benefit because, yes, okay, great. So now many, many, you know, red cap wearing Republicans are questioning big pharma. Okay, that's good. But now Democrats who were questioning. Big Pharma a decade or two ago are now 100% on board and singing the praises of Pfizer. So is that genuinely a step forward or is that just another form of divide and conquer? Yeah, that's a great question. I tend to see it as an incremental thing.

I think it is a step forward. They're just going through an endless minefield of the next thing to fall for. But it's definitely worth, I think, considering. And I think that what we've continued to see is that evolution. But just on that one note about the two-party illusion, because you've talked about this probably more than anybody. Do you think that that's like the biggest crux, the biggest hindrance to any real change in general? And if not, what do you think may be the largest? Well, so let me give my opinion on this as the Canadian in Japan. So take it for what it's worth. I have an outside

perspective, which could give me some sort of objectivity on it, but also could mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. So I'll let your audience come to their own decision on that. But when I look at the American political scene in particular, certainly it's always been partisan and it's always been about blue and red, but never so in my lifetime have I seen the conversation this polarized, this divided, to the point where you cannot function, talk to, interact with the average American to the extent that I can say that. I do interact with a lot of Americans without, without them trying to suss out. okay, are you my team or are you the other team? And if you say anything I disagree with, that means, oh, you must have voted for Biden or whatever people would say, right? So, yes, I would say in the American political context specifically, the partisan divide

is primary at this point. It is the primary way that people are kept divided. Even more specifically, I've been going back to this a lot lately. and maybe it really is time for me to do a deep dive on this, but it is very much my thesis that the global financial crisis and the resulting, no doubt, huge, widespread populist backlash against the banksters, major protests that were happening at that time, as you may recall, on both sides of the political aisle,

people were incensed over this. Can you believe $700 billion dollar bail? out, which at the time, that was a lot of money. No one had ever thrown around numbers like that. I remember when people were, mine were blown by $700 billion, and people were out on the streets marching against it. And I keep going back to this. You had the Tea Party and you had Occupy. And yeah, I guess one was on the left, one was on the right, but they were saying essentially the same thing at the core message at the beginning anyway. It was the 99% versus the 1%. It was us against Main Street versus Wall Street.

It was, why are we bailing out these big banker fat cats? And that, that I think, truly was the potentially revolutionary moment, which was derailed by woke identity, culture, war, politics. Right. That is when that conversation became the only political conversation that people were willing to have. And that's when the wedge really started to be driven in. And suddenly we've reached this point of total polarization. So I think very specifically the culture war ideas have been inserted into the conversation as a way to distract people or to get people arguing about those things rather than concentrating on, oh, wait, we all agree that the Bankster financial oligarchs are the real problem here. And we need to do something.

Oh, wait. Now I don't like the fact that you have blue hair or you won't let me go to this bathroom or whatever people are fighting about these days. Yeah. And both those groups you mentioned aggressively co-opted, driven. to the ground or at least, you know, to a mainstream direction, most definitely. And, you know, that's such a central part for me, what you mentioned after that. You know, I think we've all come, at least hopefully nonpartisan aware of people who are paying attention. This is, this woke agenda is a bipartisan dynamic. The culture war, the identity politics, the censorship, I hate speech.

You know, it's very clear that that's a problem and it's developed into something that is, as you said, it has eclipsed literally everything else. And just I'll comment that I've said many times. One of the things I keep seeing in the financial, just really any part of this, but major like Doge savings discussion, where if as long as they highlight some woke idea or DEI, which, yes, we've all highlighted as a big problem, they ignore everything else within that inner circle. And that's a big problem. And it's exactly as described. That's how that works. But I wanted to ask you in general about so going into the, from the COVID forward. So, you know, really in that time frame, in the COVID-19 illusion, which let's be clear,

hasn't really stopped. But that was, there was a, you know, a fever pitch there. What stood out to you before we get into this current time frame before the really, you know, strong beginning of the mainstream alternative media, what stood out to you from that time frame the most at the time? And what stands out to you most kind of looking back on it, maybe as, as it pertains to today? Well, at the time, I remember one of the moments that really, really affected me was, it must have been in, I would assume maybe April of 2020, something, early point of the scamdemic where things were clearly ratcheting up and we were starting to see where this was going.

And I had all these pieces of the puzzle that I'd been talking about and working on for many years, including medical martial law itself, but also digital ID and digital currency and transhumanism and all of these kind of, you know, huge agenda items. I can only imagine how crazy that was for you. It was horrible because, yeah, I understood all of these different things that were suddenly starting to come together. But I remember watching specifically it was a truth stream media video.

I can't remember which video it was. I should dig that back up. But they put together a video that was, I don't know, 20 or 30 minute compendium of this, talking and sort of bringing those pieces together and showing about the digital ID and things like this. And as I say, none of that was, it wasn't new information to me, but seeing someone else, not just me, But someone else seeing this and putting those pieces together and talking about the long-term vision of transhumanism and all of this and where we're going, that was really, really profoundly affecting to me because I realized just how incredibly important this moment of time was and how few people really understand what we're going into.

So that became part of my orientation for the entire scammemic era of, okay, well, we need to see the bigger picture of this and understand. what's happening and the tinkering with the human genome and all of this that's being enabled. Now, with a slight bit of remove, here's something that's surprising that stands out to me. And, well, okay, so let me contextualize this. From the time that I started the Corby Report, 2007, right, I was expecting that I was going to get a lot of pushback from people on false flag terrorism or, you know, central banking or some of the things that I was talking about that oh my god you crazy conspiracy theorist how dare you say how dare you imply the neocons could have had anything to do with 9-11 but interestingly i didn't understand it at the time i wasn't expecting it but in that time 2007 8-9 i was just at the

very low end of the rising tide of this incredible online media phenomenon that has taken place and you know i started my podcast in 2007 i thought i was late to the game but That was a few years before Rogan started his podcast, right? So maybe I was early enough to be part of that rising tide. And so I was not expecting it, but yeah, I know I got a lot of positive feedback from people like, yeah, keep doing what you're doing. But the one issue that I consistently got a lot of pushback on from people, the most vociferous pushback. And people would just immediately dismiss me when they found out, you don't believe in the global warming science is settled science. you and here, how can you possibly not believe these UN approved IPCC panels and blah, blah, blah.

And I would get that feedback quite a lot from people. And that was the issue that pushed them over the end. Yes, I mean, I can go along with it. Yes, the U.S. government was behind 9-11 and all of this other stuff. But scientists getting something wrong? Never. Are you telling? Yeah.

But so I would say the biggest switch I've seen, not specifically, related to the scamdemic itself, but the sort of biggest switch in mentality is I have seen a lot more people now are very much open to that question at the very least of, hey, maybe that science isn't as settled as we thought. Maybe the experts aren't the experts we thought they were. And maybe there are other things going on here. And to the extent that I've even had emails from people, I had one email that I remember from somebody who was a subscriber, he was in the comment section arguing, vociferously with people, he even argued with a guest that I had on, who was an environmental scientist who was saying, you know, actually this obsession with carbon dioxide is getting in

the way of doing actual environmental science, etc. And he was arguing with this person to the point where he rage quit the Corby Report. I got an email from him earlier this year. Well, you know what? I've come around to understanding that actually some of these groups are more interested in money and maybe there's other things going on. So sorry about the way I asked me. You know, and I'm starting to see more of that. So that to me is sort of one of the bigger picture things I could point to that is hopeful in a sense. Because again, it's about the scales falling from people's eyes. And yes, the sciops and the ways that they try to manipulate and propagandize us get a more and more elaborate and crazy.

But that's actually a sign that they're getting more and more desperate because they have to do more and more elaborate manipulations to get people to believe things. back in the past they could just say the science is settled and people would go oh okay how dare you question them but that doesn't work so well anymore so they have to resort to other tricks and tactics yeah this may be a too broad of a question too much you know too many directions to go in but like i would actually love to speak to that person the point would be that you could probably highlight yourself. The information really didn't change all that much. Like what he was looking at was things you pointed out all that time. So what changed? Like what was the block? Why did you not see it the first time?

You know, I invited him on to, to, because I wanted to do a solutions watch about this concept of changing your mind. And I wanted, I invited him on. I'd love to have a conversation with you about it, but I never heard back. So if he's out there listening, get in touch. I very much want to ask those kinds of questions. I understand people. might be uncomfortable going out in public and saying I was wrong and talking about that in the

deep way. I get it. But it's just fascinating. I want to know exactly like you. So what specifically changed and how did that change? And what's your thought process behind that? I mean, if I had to get, in my opinion would be if the information was always there, right? And he's looking at it and disregarding it. And at some point it changed. That's a societal thing or, you know, whatever it is, like something shifted to where like, and this is my larger point in the general sense about whether from COVID-19 forward or even the Israel conversation. Like one after another, we've had pretty large, I think, failed agendas. If not, they just lost control the narrative.

And one by one, people just, you know what it is? People, like to your Milgram experiment point, the show you did on that, like the, you know, people look around and they were hurt animals and they think they're not supposed to. And he, I think later got to a point to where others started asking, he started seeing more allowance. I mean, that'd be my guess. But yeah, what a fascinating conversation or why people change and how they suddenly decide that's acceptable. Interesting.

Now, in general, one of the central parts about that, whether it's that conversation or everything else today, the mainstream alternative media has clearly played this major role. And, you know, obviously that's an evolving concept. So I wanted your thoughts on that from like prior COVID after COVID. I guess the pointed question was going to be, do you think that got its rise during the COVID-19 timeframe? Because we saw a lot of people really gain a lot of traction that only seemed to turn out to not really believe those things just to get people, you know, to jump it over to their conversation and all of a sudden they're pillars in this community, but we've seen that things change quite dramatically. So do you think the mainstream alternative media really got its

drive during COVID time frame and or how do you see that and, you know, give me your thoughts on in general? Well, you know, obviously I've been watching the, the death of legacy media for a couple of decades now. And in a sense, it's a bad thing that they now realize that the comet has struck. It was great when they didn't understand what was happening. And I remember that very vividly when I started 2007, 8, 9, that I remember people were saying, where did you hear that? On the internet? I only trust CNN.

YouTube channel in your Beijing artist. It's ridiculous at this point. But that was the way that it was dismissed at that time. And I'm like, great, awesome. So I can keep doing what I'm doing. And the fuddy dutties who don't understand what's happening, they will keep doing what they're doing until it's too late. Well, now it's too late.

And they're finally starting to realize that. So there's a number of things that have come along to exacerbate that. And I guess if there's anything about the scantemic era that exacerbated that, it was that remember when all the newscasts were suddenly like people in their own home, like doing newscasts because they couldn't go into a studio together, right? You can't have people interacting. Which, Pallado, at Media Monarchy made the point many times during that era.

You know, they used to laugh at us because we're sitting here in our living room with our cheap mics and everything. And now they're doing that exact same thing, trying to essentially copy what we're doing. Right. And that was, I mean, just one of those funny ironies. But certainly, no good. Certainly, I would say things like the substack phenomenon and just the fact that now, yeah, you've got all these mainstream reporters getting laid off and are suddenly flocking to these Okay, so how do we make money online? How does this work again? I was going to say quickly that same point then.

It's just funny to me that stood out how, you know, they loved to look down on these kind of fields. And yet the moment they stepped into doing what we did, they seemed like their hair was on fire and they couldn't figure it on. I mean, that was just, that was all over the place. They're getting caught doing things they shouldn't on camera or not turning the audio off. It was just funny to see. I thought that was funny.

Or the, remember the viral clip of that guy was on a BBC interview and his child comes into the room behind. him and then the mother comes trying to get him and everything. Yeah, it was funny. It was funny to watch. Yeah, I mean, I think the main thing is the change, you know, like what, what do you think really happened in, like, is partisanship to you different today? And I think you already kind of said it is in your mind, but go into that more like partisanship in general, not even just the media, but the way that the mainstream alternative media is partisanship and the tribal idea worse than like 10 years ago, 20 years ago, like give me the thoughts on that. Yeah. Um, so,

So which is the cart and which is the horse would be the question. And I'm not sure which is which at this moment. Maybe I'll have to think about that a little bit more. Certainly, there is more partisanship in media than there was a couple of decades ago. Not that that's a bad thing, obviously, necessarily, because back when it was the sort of uniparty general consensus, it's not like it was, oh, that was a good thing. Because my point has always been there is no objectivity in media. that was always a pose that was made by the corporate media that, of course, by the end of the 20th century,

controlled everything people were seeing and hearing. And so they posed as these objective journalists floating on clouds, like the objective scientists floating on clouds, so that we don't have any opinion. We let you decide, right? We interviewed the left side of the CIA and the right side of the CIA. And we got exactly, who was it? I can't remember. I think it was Timothy Leary said Crossfire. Remember that old Crossfire CNN debate, the debate the right side of the CIA. And then you find out Timothy Leary was CIA.

So I guess just closes the circle. But that was that was the concept of the end of the objective journalism of the past. Now it's very, very much more blatant. Most media commentators at this point, you know which side of the aisle they're on, what perspective they're coming from. sense that's better because I would rather know the biases of the person I'm listening to, rather than listening to someone who's pretending to be objective about it, like Walter Cronkite, who after he retires, gets the globalists of the year award or whatever it is from Hillary Clinton and says, you know, if global government makes me a minion of Satan, then join me at the right hand of Satan. Remember that speech? That was Walter Cronkite, folks. Right. Objective news reporter,

right? So in a way, it's good that at least now it's more blatant and obvious, but it does mean, but then that, the fact that people are consuming this media that is all about this part, hyperpartisan divide and rule, left-right politics, means that then that becomes the way that they see the world, it becomes the type of discourse that they see modeled. So that's the type of discourse they have in reality. And it feeds into this sort of ratcheting up. of the problem because, again, people, the people who want to have those conversations with people from completely different perspectives,

tend to get, in the hyperpartisan social media spaces, tend to get eviscerated. How dare you talk to that person? And that comes from both the wokeys on the left and the wokeys on the right. How dare you talk to that person who I don't agree with? Right. And that's, that's very much to our detriment.

I used to say, actually, a decade ago, I would at least give props to Rogan for the fact that he had on people from different perspectives and he was willing to listen to people. I don't know how true that is anymore, but at any rate, at the time, I thought, well, at least it's modeling these types of long-form discussions that could be with someone you disagree with. That's a good thing. these days, I look to people like Hervoy Morich over at geopolitics and empire. He talks to all sorts of academics and people, sometimes that he and me and others would strongly disagree with. But hey, I'm glad that those conversations are happening and at least we can hear those other perspectives.

Absolutely. I mean, it's absolutely paramount today. And that's what, you know, and to what you pointed out before, the reason that's so difficult for even those that want to is what you highlighted is there's so much vitriol and so much, you know, defensiveness, if you just sense that they are on the other side, whatever that means, when a lot of us are just on whatever side we, our principles align with at that moment, you know, that they end up having that kind of hatred. You can't just have an amicable disagreement today, which is something I'm constantly pushing for. And, you know, we have to at least

try to do that. I think he does amazing work in that regard. Yeah, it's, it's near possible. And what you pointed out there is interesting is that, you know, so we had this classic idea of, like, the media monolith that just, you know, if it's a newspaper, it's true. My grandparents would have told me, you know, like that's the mindset. to where then it evolves into sort of the split, which I think was clearly meant to, I guess, stave off that awareness like I're seeing today, but you meant the interesting point of the media belief

to now the science belief, you know, the old guard to the new guard, technocracy, you know, which is a perfect transition to where this seems to be going. And so from after COVID, again, even though we still know the agenda is ongoing, from like the fever pitch of it all to sort of now or even in between, right? what you know what has stood out to you in contrast or i guess in continuation of those just first

things jumps to your mind well the first thing that jumps to my mind is the fact that i think given that there is this hyperpartisanship and the divide and conquer tactic in a sense you can find what the real agenda is by finding those things in which there are people conveniently on both sides of that equation so you get whatever flavor you particularly like so for example if you're for the transhumanist cyborg nightmare agenda and you want to forward that, then of course, you will have the whoever, Bill Gates or someone on the left, but then you'll have Elon Musk or someone dawning the black cap on the right, right? So you will, no matter what it is, you can be on board with that, hey, let's let the AI robots take over the world agenda precisely because you can just

get whatever flavor you're looking for. So that might, I mean, in a sense, for those who are interested in such things. That might be a good way to at least see what, okay, what is the real agenda here? Who is positioned on both sides of this argument? Yeah. Well, I mean, really, it goes back to the same point of the, you know, like the way the joke I was saying, my show, the news served up just the way you like. You know, it's what if people want to go for is that a person who's kind of packaging it in the way they already want. And if they don't, they look for the one doing that. You know, that is a mainstream alternative. And the perfect, the perfect example of that is Klaus Schwab coming out, you know, within a decade, everyone's going to have a chip in their head. And everyone's like, oh my God, this great reset horrible.

Oh my God. And then Elon Musk saying, hey, here's a new brain chip. And it's so ridiculous. It's so insane. But hey, whatever, you see what you want to see. And it goes back to that point, at least something that I consider, you know, is really how many people are really falling for that versus those those that are following along or are going along because it's in their interest or their job. You know, it's like with COVID, I think we need to really start redefining that. Because I think even though the majority got bullied into it, I don't.

think even close to the majority was really in line, like in the entirety. You know, maybe in the beginning because people didn't know, but that's where I see things going today is that there's a lot more nuance than we'd like to give it credit for. But it kind of, I think a good point to discuss in that is one more point in the extension of the mainstream alternative media and just generally we don't have to go into each one of them unless you want to, all the many different incredible things. Like just how about that? Just give me your thoughts on Trump's, what, first months and how many incredible things have

happened just like you just highlighted, you know, JFK file is not coming through. really specifically MRNA platforms, you know, North American Union, Israel, Ukraine, end of IRS, Fed, CBDCs, digital IDs, you know, give me your thought on that kind of progression in the first part of his administration and just how, I don't know, how crazy that is. Yeah. Not much has happened, though, it has a few months. I've been pretty bored over here. We're not, not a lot to talk about.

Yeah. Insane. Of course, obviously, that's part of the point. And not even from the sort of conspiracy. point of view, but just that it's all, an administration is always measured by the first hundred days, right? So the whole point is to be as disruptive as you can and do as much as you can in the first hundred days. And I, I'm certainly no American political historian. So I don't know where that concept came from, but I've certainly heard that my whole life. The first hundred

days, blah, blah, blah. So, you know, first hundred days being chaotic, mission already accomplished. You know what? We don't even need the rest of the hundred days. Just stop now. Thank you. But the point, I guess that sort of makes a broader point about disruptive change. You know, it actually ties into the sort of the longer and larger conversation that, for example, I was having with Dr. Tim Ball, rest in peace. When I went to visit him in Victoria back in 2009 and we had this lengthy conversation about history and science and philosophy and everything. And one of the points he made is we tend to think that when we're talking, about these things like climate change and these sorts of things, we tend to think in these big geological timescales and things happen gradually over tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of years.

But actually, change can and does happen very, very rapidly. There are certain points that are rupture points and things happen very quickly. And because our mindset is in this sort of nothing is changing, we have the recency bias and permanency bias. We tend to think, you know, nothing's going to change that much, that the way to actually affect real change is to just go in there, absolutely change everything all at once. And then, okay, here's the new normal to use that phrase. And people will then adopt that as, okay, now this is the normal. So if you want to be disruptive, don't go slowly, go very quickly. And of course, that's the mantra of the Silicon Valley, big tech nerds, right? That was the whole thing, move fast and break things. Right. Was the mantra, right?

So that's exactly what they're doing. And to that extent, mission accomplished, because we certainly are living in a different paradigm now than we were even a few months ago. Yeah. I mean, it's also to point out distractionary, you know, like that there's so many things happening.

You really just can't even digest. Exactly. Any one of the things you rattled off there would be something we would be talking about for months and months. But now it's like, oh yeah, I kind of remember that happening. Yeah.

Muck and L? Whatever. Right. Well, I mean, it's, you know, I call the MAGA great reset or if we can get into

like the great Palantir reset, I called it as well, like the overlapping ideas where this is just a barely, like a small veneer of a change, and it's the great reset. The same thing, on overdrive, it really seems. You know, so like we've talked about the security state to sort of like the biomedical security state or the technate, you know, whatever want to call it, seems to clearly be kind of coming to pass right now. So what, give me your vision on this, right? The Palantir discussion, how you see that developing, like what's the biggest threat in your mind right now in regard to like this building kind of really total information, I mean, it's just, it's exactly that seems to be developing right now with the IRS.

I mean, that's a thousand. Absolutely. No, no, no. It's exactly right in every respect. And in fact, it really only occurred to me yesterday that I thought, you know, I was going into this administration thinking about Palantir and Teal's influence. And that is the one thing I haven't thought about in the past few months precisely because we're being hit by the thousand things at once.

So I only just saw this article being posted up today. from Derek Brose. Well, today, my time to your yesterday or whenever that was. So I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I'm very much looking forward to digging into that because, yeah, what happened to that Palantir thing? We know that Vice President Vance is essentially Vice President Thiel.

We know that there are deep claws into this administration. And I do, of course, remember the Anderal Palantir Defense pact that they were making in December, January, with anticipation of new contracts for the new administration. And so yesterday I did look up at, are there any trending news stories about this? And I did see, oh, yeah, of course, immigration OS or whatever they're calling it. Right.

Palantir, of course, is behind the big roundup because how are you going to find all these illegals? Well, you better have some sort of all-seeing eye, big brother, total surveillance, deep state mechanism for doing that, right? Right. Yeah, it makes total sense. that Palantir would be getting contracts for doing that and would be behind that. But of course, that does speak to that broader issue of, yeah, essentially the Great Reset. All of the main agenda items of that are encapsulated in this changeover that we see happening.

And clearly what is going to be the sort of the big tech administration in a lot of ways, the perfect visual example of which was at the inauguration where you had, you know, Bezos and Zuck and Musk and all of these big tech guys. there to rein in this new administration. What does he announce literally first day? Project Stargate, you know, $500 billion for this new AI infrastructure. And here's my good friend, you know, stare into the orb, Sam Altman. And just, and here's Larry Ellison to talk about MRI vaccines and how they're going to be revolutionized by AI. It boggles my mind that absolutely anyone who was against the Great Reset is for this. I cannot,

imagine what mental, gymnastic, pressel knots you have to do in order to justify that. But I know some people do. And to your point, to your point, how do I know some people do? Because I do get feedback, Musk fanboys and others. I can't believe you don't think Doge is the greatest thing and whatever. I do get feedback like that from time to time. But do I? I mean, why do I, I'm just seeing emails or comments or, you know, virtual avatars, are these real people? I mean, we really should be a little bit more skeptical,

I think, about the information we're receiving in totally online virtual text reform. I think people are a little bit, including myself, can get a little bit too trusting as to that this is what people are really thinking. No, A, even if it is a real human being, it is a very self-selected human being who is outraged that I said something bad

about their favorite, Whereas 99% of people are like, oh, yeah, of course. But also, do we know it's a real human being? That's increasingly an important question to be asking. Definitely. I mean, whether it's the dead internet conversation or the many different studies that show what half the internet is bots, not all nefarious, but definitely a part of it. I think Twitter is way, way, way more than that. You know, but it's interesting.

I was just commenting on this that I fall into the same trap where I'm constantly making this point. Just as a, we don't know, so we should consider whether it might be, you know, I'll be online and be going like, I can't believe everybody thinks this. And I go, wait, hold on. You know, like, I'm falling forward in real time too. It's, it's just that you, you get out. I mean, that's why I think the whole point is that it's like an outrage feeder. It gets you, it gets, it's circular and it keeps you pushing in further.

And that's the whole thing. It's, it's a, this is a good part of the reason why I am not on Twitter. And I, yeah, I don't want to be in that conversation. It is going to skew my perception in a way that might not comport with reality. I want to be in charge of my news feed. And I want to control. what sources I am seeing. And yeah, that can become a bubble.

And you absolutely have to be aware of the formation of that bubble and try to puncture it. But I would rather be in charge of that process rather than some algorithm. It's funny. I think about that more than you think. Like you in particular, and one of the, you know, pulling off a Twitter and, you know, like my big problem with that is I'm obviously correct. Like hands down, like that's the reason that I most likely have considered, the most likely reason for me in the past that I've considered that.

but the problem is for me is it such there it is clearly the most used platform so that means you're going to get the most real time information you know you have to consider whether half of it's fake at any given moment you know that's the hard thing but you're right though like like i was just saying without even recognizing it you end up falling for these things and i think we don't even really grasp the level to these things at this point like whether it's which i was going to maybe touch on at the end if we have time like neuro weapon science kind of direction and what that may be doing if not just basic propaganda how that affects us as well it's worth considering out there, but it's hard. It's a balance, you know, because I definitely feel I miss

out on things that I might not have seen in real time if I do it otherwise. But like you say, you cultivate it in a different way, you know? That's right. I mean, I feel for the people like yourself are doing daily news shows that have to know the up to the minute breaking news. And because, yeah, you're going to have to venture into that social media stream to get that. I have the luxury of, you know, most of the stuff I put out is at least 24 hours, 48 hours, whatever behind. It doesn't matter. I'm not commenting on the breaking news at the moment.

So I have the luxury of having that filter of the social media chaos of breaking news and commentary. What gets filtered through to the sources that I follow, I will eventually see. And that's good enough for me. But yeah, for people who need that up to the minute breaking news. Yeah, I get it. The way I rationalize at least is that I do that so they don't have to. But even though they probably do too, you know?

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think the next kind of logical, we already, you know, briefly highlighted it is just this total information awareness conversation and what that really looks like. I want your thoughts on, you know, again, kind of how you've seen this building and how wild it is to see it like really come to pass, like the actual total information awareness that's become Palantir. And now as we're highlighting this really alarming. And I really could go through the next 20 minutes showing like 11 different examples of how they're, whether it's the IRS, whether it's RAMP, these different programs, all these different ways that they're, consolidating and making it clear, like previously siloed information for your privacy is now being jammed together and maybe even into a cloud or the idea of like the AI governance or AI bots and how

it's all coming into it. Like, you know, where, where do you see that as it is now? Do you think that's even something like Whitney would discuss whether that's like AI is even real, like that's kind of a play in itself? Just high elevation view. What do you see it in this direction? All right. I would say there's a cover word that has been used to get people to buy into this agenda. and then there's the real word that describes what's going on. The cover word is efficiency. And the real word is algocracy. So to contextualize this conversation, we need to go back to 2002.

Was it two or three? When the information awareness office was first revealed and everyone, even the New York Times was writing op-eds about it at the time. Like, this is crazy. You're going to take literally all. all of our data, you're going to take credit card information and travel history, medical records, and drivers license the database registry, and just literally everything, every piece of information and put it all together and data mine it and analyze it and try to find people's connect.

This is big brother stuff absolutely hell no. And that actually caused, at the very least, DARPA had to come back and say, okay, sorry, guys, we're not going to go ahead with that. don't worry. And of course, as, as Whitney has pointed out in her excellent must read reporting on this, it didn't go away. It just became Palantir. And, you know, of course, it was Poindexter. Admiral Pointexter, who was running the information awareness office, was the one who did the contract with Palantir to, with Teal to give Palantir its first CIA contracts, which was its entree into government contracting generally. So, yes, it just became Palantir, essentially. So it has continued on.

But at the very least, at that time, 20 plus years ago, there was such public outrage about the very idea of such an operation that it had to go underground. But now, now it's suddenly coming back to the forefront and people are on board with it. No one's super well, I won't say no one. But at least the societal conversation that we're seeing online, people aren't getting that kind of, oh my God, what are they doing? this is crazy, this is big brother. And why is that? I think because we have been conditioned into the cult of, the cult of technocracy, which is based on this idea of efficiency.

You need to be as efficient as possible in every aspect. Why wouldn't you? Who could be against efficiency? It's like one of these things like where they name their act, the Taking Care of Children Act, and it's all about actually censoring people online or whatever. But of course, they do. it because, well, are you against taking care of children? No, no, I'm not. I'm for whatever you say under that rubric. Well, in the same way, are you against efficiency? Well, no, no, I'm not against you.

So I think they have used that as the cover. And of course, the Department of Government of Gover and Efficiency. Oh, it's just a joke, guys, doge, right? Like that funny meme coin and something about the old Venetian system. Whatever, don't look into that. But that's the way people have been sold on this. And that is the certainly what is filtering down into the public conversation right now. As I pointed out in my Algoncracy episode, I just find it interesting that, you know, the biggest podcast in the world, Joe Rogan is now talking about, you know, we need AI government, things like this. Because wouldn't it be so much better than having this, all this crazy, partisan political stuff? No, we'll just get the AI Oracle to tell us what to do. And how could that go wrong?

But, of course, as I say, efficiency is the cover word, and people think, oh, this is going to streamline government to make it so much more efficient. Why do we have all these old legacy systems of different databases that are siloed off that can't talk to each? No, combine all the information and everything will be better. And that's the concept behind personalized medicine, for example. You know, you might have, you know, your records with your oncologist and your cardiologist and your whatever, optometrist. No, combine all of your records together. then we'll take your genome and then we can tailor medicines just for you. How can you be against that? Well, in the same way, government has all these records and all these different databases.

Just combine them all, make it all this one big efficient system, maybe tie it all into an ID number that could be tied to your like retinal scan or something, you know, like AdHAR. That seems like a good model to follow, right? And then it'll be so efficient. And that's the way it's being sold. But what is really happening, I think big, if you want to look at the big, big, big, big picture. I keep going back to that selfish ledger video from Google. Because that to me, it's just, yeah, I think that's about right. And they put it out in their own words, so I will use it against them. But yeah, essentially the concept is for people who at, please see the video if you haven't

seen it yet, but for people who haven't seen it, the concept is, what are we, who are we? What is our identity? What defines us? Well, much of it has to do with our experience. What we have experienced in the past, the types of things, the types of things that we're drawn to will lead us in certain directions and then we will encounter more information and that will change us in certain definable ways, et cetera, et cetera. That's just humanity.

That's just how we live. But imagine if you could direct that process by tailoring exactly the experiences that people will have. How could you possibly do that? Well, in a world where we are 99.9% living through this virtual filtered reality. And they even talk about, I mean, crazy stuff. Like, the algorithm could determine that whatever it determines, you need to lose 10 pounds. So you better exercise more.

So it will literally create the type of cool, you know, tennis running shoe or whatever that they know you'll be interested in buying, which will then incentivize you to go run. And that's just like one tiny example of how you could structure someone's entire life. And as they say, this is the selfish ledger, the genome, ultimately starts to change because over time, people start making choices that are tailored based on specific experiences. That doesn't just change and affect you as an individual. Ultimately, that's the entire human species can be led along in a certain way. And that would have been unthinkable in any other era.

But here we are in the big data era where everything that we do is being controlled and filtered through these algorithms that are being written by people we don't know and ways that we don't understand. Just trust us, guys. We know what we're doing with your lives. That to me is the big, big picture of this. Yeah. Well, can you speak to the overlap? And Derek put an article out about the kind of efficiency movement and like the original kind of background to the Taylorism movement and eugenics. And, you know, the whole kind of a larger connection between those three things and how, like, for example, we saw Andresi or Andreessen on Rogan laying out the idea that we need good elitist to save us from the bad elitists, right? Or the reference of Trump's reference to like the Machiavellian like, ends justify the means kind of a point. Like kind of contextualize all of that for us and how that goes forward.

In two minutes or less. That's a lot. That's a lot. Well, Yes. So people who want to know that the background of technocracy and where it comes from should probably start with Patrick Wood in his books, in which he talks about some of that background. And it was it Frederick Taylor? Taylorism, the idea of designing the system for the production of whatever it is at your factory or what have you. I mean, we could go back to just the concept of the assembly line. We could go back to Adam Smith talking about how pins. are made or whatever in the division of labor. But of course, Henry Ford very famously took that idea, that concept, okay, well, let's make an assembly line and every single worker works on that one particular thing. And so that makes it a little bit more efficient. Then there became the science of efficiency of, okay, so now we can manage the flow between different workers and how things move in the factory and we can get it down to this perfectly

tailored, excuse the pun, science. and we can make things maximally efficient. And ultimately, of course, once people start thinking about that in a very specific term in a factory or something, well, wouldn't the point be to apply that more broadly to society generally? And can't we start tailoring? I can't escape that word now. Society in various ways to make it more efficient generally, not just in the production of parts, but in whatever it is we do.

And that is the mindset, the first. fundamental mindset behind the technocrats, the idea of engineering the world for the good of humanity, of course, as I'm sure a lot of the true believers would genuinely think they're doing, but what it amounts to is manipulation. And personally, I'm doing some research on psychology at the moment. So the one that stands out in my mind is B.F. Skinner and the radical behavioral behaviorists. So people might, might, everyone knows Pavlov, right? Pavlov's dogs, everyone knows that experiment. He rang a bell and the dog salivated, wow, okay, cool. So you can condition an animal to have a certain response, right? But actually, when you look into what Pavlov

actually did, it wasn't quite so benign. It wasn't, he was just ringing a bell and there was some salivation. No, he would surgically implant these salivation monitors and the dogs and other such grotesqueries, but it didn't stop with dogs. He then, with his protege, they then rounded up orphans off the street, because who's going to care about some orphans, surgically implanted them with salivation monitors, drug them up, and then did the same thing to prove you can do this to humans, too. Wonderful. That becomes the foundation of the behaviorist research, which goes into how you can use operant conditioning, as they call it, to condition people into certain things. And that leads up to the radical behaviorists like B.F. Skinner, who people, to the extent that they know him,

probably know him from, you know, getting pigeons to be able to, you know, turn around three times in order to get their pellet of food or whatever. So you can program these animals, almost like robots, to do these very specific things for their rewards. And people may or may not know, I believe it was Skinner behind the cat bomb idea. At any rate, it was that concept. The idea was you were going to put a cat in this guided missile, and the cat would be able to steer the missile essentially to an enemy target. You would be able to condition it.

So it would be, I mean, just a total lunacy like this, but they were really looking into it in World War II. But more worryingly, as I went over in film literature in the New World War II, World Order episode on Walden 2, which was B.F. Skinner's book that he wrote about a perfect, wonderful utopian engineered society, in which every child from birth is conditioned to be the type of person they're going to need to be to fulfill their role in society, which of course is already selected for them. And it's a perfect utopian system, right? What could go wrong? Except Skinner really believed. He wasn't bringing in the sarcastic sort of what could go wrong. No, he genuinely

believed that, of course, we should condition children from birth to accept their role in society. It'll make things so much easier. That's the mindset. We need to control humanity and slot everybody into their place and not only force them into that place, but get them to want to willingly choose that place in society. And wouldn't that be perfect? Because then everyone would be where they want to be and everyone would be happy with it. It's the exact same thing that Aldous Huxley was talking about in his ultimate revolution speech towards the end of his life where he was talking about, you know, soon,

dictators of the future will have the ability not only to control people with these electronic electrodes plant into their brains and other such things that he was talking about, technology that he had seen in laboratories on mice and what have you, but he said they will be able to love, learn to love their servitude. And, you know, He was presenting it as a warning, but you could see the, I think you could see the evident glee as he was talking about it. Anyway, maybe that's just my interpretation.

But that is, at any rate, the sort of mindset of these people. And yes, the ultimately, perfectly efficient system would be to have a bunch of essentially human robots, automaton's, conditioned for their role in society, doing exactly what they are meant to do by the would-be controllers who are managing every person as if they're, you know, rats in a lab, lab situation, lab maze. Personally, I don't think that's a wonderful and fulfilling vision for the future of humanity. And it comes, I think, fundamentally from an error, which I do write about in the book, I write about a brief introduction to spontaneous order because I think people might think this is just a little hobby horse of mine. Oh, there's James talking about spontaneous order again.

No, I think this is absolutely fundamental to truly countering this mindset of the technocrats and the people who are trying to engineer society into this vision of Walden 2 or whatever they're steering us towards. No, because that mindset is based on the idea that the only way to order society is top down centralized control to have a person deciding, okay, this person does this over here and this person. does that and these materials go here. And that is a fundamentally wrong vision for how order can arise or even should arise. Because the funny thing is, if you want to be utilitarian and just argue for ends and means, I think it is actually less efficient and less productive to have that central manager controlling every single part of the world. Because at the very least, in the end, the system is only as good or bad as that person in positions of power.

Right. It can make it. And it's extremely fragile. Any part of that system fails and the whole thing comes crashing down. Whereas spontaneous order is an opposite vision of society. It's not the top-down centralized. I'm going to tell you what to do with your life. It is the fact that most of our life is lived in anarchy.

No one told you, You have to be a chef or you have to be a podcaster or you have to do this. No one told you you have to marry this person. You have to have this many kids. You have to do. Almost everything we do is done in anarchy. And you know what? That has worked for thousands and tens of thousands of years.

And human society has grown as a result of that. This is the spontaneous order of people making their own choices. But you know what? humans are social animals, as the social engineers would no doubt call us. And that means we want to cooperate. We want to get along with our neighbors. We want to have a thriving society. So we cooperate on things that we want to cooperate on.

And that, those types of natural things that come together just because we want to interact and have a nice life with each other, those are stable structures because they have arisen over time. Naturally, no one is forcing that together. It's just the way that humans operate. That is actually a much more stable and, I would say, much more fulfilling vision for humanity. But that has been so completely drummed out of us that most people, when they even hear of the concept of spontaneous order, are incentivized to want to fight back and argue against that. That's crazy. No, it's much more efficient to have one planar and we need a leader and there has to be a governor who rules over everything.

It's strange to me to see how excited people get, frothing at the mouth, to try to debunk the idea of spontaneous order. Until we can fundamentally question that concept, that order can only come from above, until we can question that, I think, will never fundamentally strike at the heart of this technocratic idea. I agree. And I think that one things we're seeing, one of the things we're seeing most prominently right now, like you're describing is this contradictory.

like we're being taught our lives that we have freedom and liberty and we're fighting for but that's been clearly not the case at least not in full at least right now i think it's been you know maybe the entire time the point is now that's coming to head with this new idea right where constitutional rights are clearly a problem with that you know and but you could argue that plenty of people out there or some might believe that might be better for society the point in and maybe you out there listening think that but you have to acknowledge that it's antithetical to freedom the liberty right it's like the you can you know the safety liberty conversation you know And so at the end of the day, I think right now that they're trying, that's kind of that point about the Andres and Dresen and these people trying to convince a lot of staunch constitutionalists that that's all caic and you've got to just let us take control for your betterment. And you know, but it's so contradictory right now. And so that is interesting that we can see this kind of effort to try to convince them. Now, do you think that that what you just described is happening right now or you think they're trying to instill that or build it? I think it has been instinct.

in the minds of the public has certainly been propagandized and planted deep in there for generations at this point. I don't think it's a new idea. I think people have been conditioned into the idea of accepting and and even desiring that kind of top-down centralized control. And as I say, I think the point that makes me understand just how deep that propaganda and conditioning goes is that is how excited and how angry people get at the, at people who question that. And to me, that's always a sign of, oh, I have hit on something that, like, in the matrix, you know, when you're about to do something that you shouldn't do in the matrix, whoever it is suddenly becomes Agent Smith and starts attacking you, right? That, that to me seems like one of those things. Oh, you're not allowed to question that, right?

You can't possibly put positive an idea that we don't need top-down rule. And I see one of the tactics that I see, at least in my circles, even some of the commenters on my own website, their first action is to say, well, of course, you know, like for us, our, you know, people who have it, have a brain, we could possibly maybe function for ourselves and live in a free environment. But most people are stupid zombies. Look at them, fat slabs walking around buried in their smartphone. They, and they, they don't want, they don't want to take responsibility. They're not conscious agents. So, so they need, they need some sort of top-down imposed authority.

And there you go. If you dehumanize everyone else, I guess it's very easy to say they don't deserve human rights, right? Right, right. And I thought, just what you said, I flatly don't agree with that. I mean, I don't know whether it's 51% in my mind or I, but the idea that, you know, that I would call being blackpilled, right? The idea that, well, and nobody, it's lost already and nobody sees it.

I definitely think that that's what, like you're saying, that's definitely what they would want you to lean into because that even if it is the case, that's better for them to stop people like us from pushing back, you know, but I don't think that, you know, I think that more today than ever, people are somewhat seeing things and that's why this is getting so uncomfortable. So the last point that I wanted to get into is, you know, kind of bringing it to the current reality, right? So we've gone over kind of a larger view of the evolution evolution of this whole thing. So clearly right now, at least in my opinion, and I've been talking about a lot is the constitutional issue that's coming to a point and perfect, you know, kind of good transition right there is that I

think right now they're trying to find ways to and as you pointed out this is always the case to get you to undermine your principles for x y and z agenda right but right now it's clearly happening about constitutional rights and i mean the dissolution of the supreme court like possibly the argument this entire system we have and and maybe from a non-statist perspective we kind of want that but maybe that's not what they're going to bring afterward you know it's like so where you think this goes and just comment for me on the constitutional part of it as well yeah all right so obviously i have to um put in the caveat that as people may or may not know, but they should know, I am no statist. I pledge no allegiance to any flag and I am not, I'm not a proponent of that system of

authoritarian control. So particular constitutional documents and stuff, I understand the sway that they have on many people. They have zero sway on me, except for the concept. Well, first, I will say the only political document that I think I can even at least partially get behind is the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. the declaration, because there are some good language in there. I don't necessarily agree with it all, but there's some good ideas in there. Having said that, at the very least, I mean, certainly people who go and read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers and the kind of conversation that was happening around

at the time of the formation of the U.S. will know that there were some very educated, very articulate, very learned people who were putting, doing their level best and having a really deep political, conversations about history and trying to structure, how do you actually structure a government that will not become this horrible tyranny? Well, flash forward a couple hundred years. Unfortunately, they lost. Whatever they did was quite not good enough, right? Maybe 15 years. Yeah, exactly. The whiskey rebellion was what, 1798 or whatever it was. So anyway, yeah. But, but having said that, these people were really truly thinking and trying their best. And so they were drawing on standing

on the shoulders of giants, drawing on some very, very profound philosophical traditions like John Locke, of course, and others. And so it is in that context that we can look at some of the ideas from, for example, the Bill of Rights. And so why, what was the point of that? And where did it come from? I don't care that it was written down on a piece of paper and signed off by whoever. That's not the point. The point is, okay, so are there actually ideas? Are there real principles that I can voluntarily say, yes, that is a good principle to live by? And, and, And one of them that I think is important is the concept of due process of law. It goes back well beyond past the Constitution.

If you want to look at the concept of Western jurisprudence and the idea of the common law, which was the basis of which that the, obviously the American colonials were using as their basis to start the United States of America, it goes back to the Magna Carta. And this is a document that now is, what, 800 plus years old? and is the absolute foundations of our system, our Western system of justice, which by the way, certainly in the English context where it was arising, was a common law system. It's not that there was a person who signed a document. I mean, the Magna Carta is an example of enshrinement of rights,

but those rights were developed as the sense of the community over a period of generations that were adjudicated on by different people in different times. It's an evolving thing that represents the sense of the community, common law, not law as in I wrote this piece of thing on a piece of paper, right? So the concept of due process of law is an incredibly important one. And unfortunately, that concept is now being entered into the left-right polarization mixer, where if you're wearing the red cap, you have to be against due process. of law at this point because you saw that guy. He was he was MS-13. So get him the hell to

El Salvador. Okay. And you better believe that whatever case that the mainstream and mainstream alternative media fixate on is going to be some one of those whatever, like a George Floyd kind of case where there are things to say about systemic racism and whatever. But that that probably isn't the case that exemplifies all of it. Right. So whatever. cases they are pointing out in the mainstream media or legacy media right now are not going to be the cases people should be concentrating on. It's the concept, the idea of a due process of law. Is, do we need a due process of law? Or should it be that just the president can just sign something and do whatever he feels like? And of course, the people donning the red caps are suddenly,

yes, the president can do anything he wants. Screw courts, screw due process, screw, you know, all that stuff. And you better believe that four years from now, eight years from now, whenever it is, when somebody with a blue cap gets into the Oval Office, oh my God, no, how did this ever happen? This is the process that we're stuck. It's a stuck on stupid conversation because, again, it's not about principles. It's about team sports. And to the extent that it gets caught up in the now, as opposed to the bigger picture,

I think we lose. Well said, James. It's always refreshing to talk to you, my friend. It's just, you know, it reminds me that there are people out there that can objectively converse about these things in a nonpartisan way. So thank you. Last point, since you kind of ended on this, just a question. I don't know if you've heard the floating.

And I think Trump's store is now selling 2028 hats. Do you think he's going to run for a third term, seeing us how that kind of interestingly relates to what you just said there? It's been floated by ban and even Trump himself, 22nd Amendment. It's not legal in any concept. But what do you think? The way things are going, it wouldn't surprise me.

The thing that would surprise me is if he's still alive at that point, not even I'm, I'm not even saying about the assassination question, but actually just, I mean, he's an old man. We'll see what it, we'll see what he looks like in four years. But I don't know. Again, if they tried something like that, it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, I really just brought it up to him included in the thought process that, you know, there's a thousand ways right now we're seeing them stretch, if not completely, you know, whether it's an over-door window or just like, you know, things that are shall not be infringed

are suddenly like, well, except for this. You know, it's funny during COVID-19, one of the things you heard the most from the constitutionalists on the right was that, well, it's not shall not be infringed unless asterisk for pathogen, you know, and it's the same damn thing as always. I saw Larkin put on a tweet like that

that just, you know, confounded going in the same thing happens every time, you know, it's... Let me just interject. I know you know this, but hate speech and all these woke liberals trying to police our speech, total nonsense. You said something bad about Israel.

you shouldn't be speaking at all. There's woke on the left, there's woke on the right. Absolutely. Absolutely. I'm just, you know, and again, the larger point from a few points in the show today, I really hope more people are truly seeing this. I believe that's the case. If not, we should definitely lean into that because there is a moment here where people are changing, whether it's from COVID or the ongoing genocide or, you know,

the great reset that's slapping everybody in the face. I think that people are starting to ask questions. So now's a good time to get out there and talk about it. So, James, thank you, as always, my friend. and everybody out there question. Well, actually, before we change, did you want to shout anything out before we leave today? I always like to do that.

I just forgot. I will just direct people again to the book, reportagebook.com. And if you are interested, if there is anyone in the audience who's going to be in Japan next month, the details of the book launcher on my website, corbett report.com.

Outstanding. I'll include that in the show notes. And as always, everybody out there, question everything. Come to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.